I remember liking the original REEKER - a derivative B-movie but one with bite - so I thought I'd give this undistinguished sequel a chance. I wish I hadn't. The talent behind the first film has disappeared so what we get in its place is a dull and predictable B-picture with little to recommend it. Things kick off with a mini-prequel explaining the Reeker's origins - a particularly pointless bit of screen time, I have to say - before moving into the usual forgettable territory. It's cop versus robbers, except the two sides have to work together when the Reeker himself shows up, looking for blood.This is the kind of film that lazily throws in stock CGI explosions and some mild gore here and there in a bid to retain the audience's attention. Efforts are in vain, because the writing is so below par and the acting noticeably bad; no actors stand out from the crowd here, all are equally poor. The CGI effects seem worse than the ones in the original and never for the moment is there any real suspense or excitement. It's just below par all the way.

The writer/director/thief of NMLTROR "borrowed" heavily from I-had-no-clue-I-wuz-snuffed movies like "Stay", "Identity" "Dead End", "Point Blank", "The Sixth Sense", "The Others", "Carnival of Souls" but also the "Final Destination" series when he made the first movie, so it's no wonder that this prequel runs into the same kind of trouble as all the "Final Destination" sequels did: we already know the outcome. The main characters all dead i.e. dying. The whole it-was-all-a-dream shtick dates back all the way back to "The Wizard of Oz", so indirectly even that movie is one of the dozens of films that served as "inspiration" (i.e. source of thievery). Basically what I'm saying is, if you're looking for originality here, just forget it. But if you're a horror film fan, you must have already given up on that anyway. (You need to watch between 50 to 100 horror films before you find one that contains some new idea.) Admittedly, effort was made if not exactly to circumvent this problem than at least to make the movie as unpredictable as possible – within its predictable and limiting parameters. Hence the ending with two actual survivors this time around, plus the fact that Reeker actually gets killed. It's interesting though that the director lets the new sheriff survive, of all people. Isn't this the same guy who told us that he gets horny when he watches dolphins mate? Was the director trying to tell us something about himself, perhaps? Hm.But then comes the next unoriginal plot-twist i.e. premise-theft: new blood has been sought out by Evil to be trained as a serial-killer and then later as Reeker's replacement. Something tells me we've already had that idea in the supremely idiotic "Saw" series. Having a kid become a new killer is pretty daft. When is Reeker 3 going to be recruited, when he is 3 months old? In a strange way, the writer/director/thief HAS managed to create a first in cinema, although perhaps unintentionally. Namely, "Reeker" features Reeker 2 (i.e. this movie's kid), while "Reeker 2" aka NMLTROR features Reeker 1, the original Reeker. I don't think we've had that before. But because this is a prequel, it could be argued that this is "Reeker 0". Does this make sense to you? NMLTROR is a rather silly horror film, with several inane reactions by the characters, and even dumber dialog, and yet it is an improvement over the first part, which was even less original and kind of dull.

If you have seen REEKER, skip this sequel (actually, a prequel). It is virtually identical in plot to the original. A small group of people find themselves stranded at a desert roadside stop. One by one, members of the group are assaulted by a bloodthirsty specter until there are only a couple left. Ah, but is this really happening? Those who saw the first movie will know that a major twist is coming at the end. Reeker himself remains sort of interesting, but he does nothing here that he did not do in the first movie. Also, his killing ground here looks pretty darned close to his killing ground in the first movie. If there is a second sequel, Reeker will need to take a vacation in Vegas or L.A. to spice things up. Some good, gory kills, and the Reeker animation is still eye-popping. Also, veteran actor Robert Pine is on hand as the local sheriff. But REEKER cognoscenti may safely give this one a pass.

Here's the film in a nutshell: If you saw the first one, skip it. If you haven't, then you might enjoy it a little bit.The movie is basically a carbon copy of the original Reeker, except with new characters thrown in and a little bit of background on the Reeker character so that they could create a new film. I normally have no problem enjoying films that aren't completely original, but No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker adds very little to what the first film brought to the table.You will find yourself EXTREMELY bored as there are no characters to root for and you'll just want them all to die anyway. Even though some people might believe otherwise, this film DOES rely heavily on its final twist. And if you've seen Reeker, surprise! It's the same thing all over again. That is what makes the film so dull. You know what is going to happen at the end of your 88 minutes that you're going to waste.The movie does try to shed some light on the Reeker's origin's, but that aspect of the film turns out to be a tiny portion of the film's running time. If tacking on the same old ending isn't insulting enough, the final scene of the film (after all is said and done) will make you cringe with just how awfully cliché it is.If you've seen Reeker, avoid this one by all costs. It's a lazy attempt for the studio to capitalize on a decent first film. And if you haven't seen the original you might enjoy this one, but I'd definitely recommend checking out the previous installment before seeing this cough*remake*cough.